1 964 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 964 APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 181 OF 2024 RAJENDRA GANPAT NAGRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Devidas Rangnath Shelke APP for Respondent/State: Mr. B. B. Bhise Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. K. N. Shermale ... CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 12th MARCH, 2025 PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. The case against the accused / respondents is that they have instigated / abeted the deceased to commit suicide. I have perused the FIR and considering the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicants, I see no error in the same. 3. It is stated that the accused had taken the victim out of the temple, noticing the victim was creating nuisance in kirtan and, thereafter, beaten and insulted / harassed the victim; due to which the victim had committed suicide. This fact, prima facie, would not attract offence under Section 108 and, accordingly, the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail 2025:BHC-AUG:7205 2 964 4. The learned counsel for the applicant / informant submits that there are injuries noted in the postmortem report and that the accused have assaulted the deceased and this aspect of the matter is not considered by the court and, as such, the offence is registered only under Section 108 of BNS and it should have been also under Section 117 of the BNS. 5. Prima facie, the offence under Section 117 of the BNS is not registered and on examining the order of the sessions court, the order being correct, this court would not interfere with the same. However, if the applicant / informant is aggrieved by non adding of Section 117 of BNS in the FIR or charge-sheet then he can take appropriate steps in that regard before the appropriate court. 6. The Application for Cancellation of Bail stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe